Black kid wrote a poem about death by cops

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I don't know what you're talking about, it's fantastic where I live. You should come visit, I'd buy you a beer



I disagree - the punishment for non cooperation is not death. That to me is an outrage and has very broad and dire consequences. If you pose an immediate, mortal danger to others then yes, the police can and should kill you. But it should be certain and in this instance the guy was unarmed. I don't know how they came to decide it was appropriate to kill him - perhaps more will come out as this moves on, I am basing it simply on what is currently being reported.

The officer isn't meting out punishment in such a case, he is acting in defense of the community at large. If he reasonably believes a killer is escaping police custody and will present a danger to the community, he is empowered to use force to prevent that. That seems like exactly what happened in this case.

 

[luckyshot]

I agree in principal that police should not shoot kids in the back, bu tin this specific case, the details seem to justify the shooting. I think the wrong shooting is being protested here. It's the other kid who needs his poems read and candlelight vigils and all that.

If you are going to parcel out your sympathy, you might as well save it all together. That kid that got shot in the drive by was probably involved in another shooting some time before. Out of the crooked timber of humanity, nothing straight was ever made. I’m not saying the officer acted wrongly, but it’s OK to feel sympathy for the tragedy of the entire situation.

 

[Neph]

That being said, I’m not defending the protocol of the police officer. I’m defending the raw morality of it. That “kid” was involved in a drive by. Whether he killed anyone or not is irrelevant, he decided to kill and he tried to do it. He is a killer in my mind. So I really won’t lose sleep over his death. A garbage human whose loss improves the world. If he was an innocent kid who got shot running over some weed I’d understand the outrage.

I won't be losing sleep over the loss of a guy who did a drive by shooting. I do think the 'shooting people in the back' thing is getting a bit out of hand.

 

[Gutter Chris]

I disagree - the punishment for non cooperation is not death. That to me is an outrage and has very broad and dire consequences. If you pose an immediate, mortal danger to others then yes, the police can and should kill you. But it should be certain and in this instance the guy was unarmed. I don't know how they came to decide it was appropriate to kill him - perhaps more will come out as this moves on, I am basing it simply on what is currently being reported.

Heres the catch

The suspect was suspected of having just shot someone .... that makes you a threat to the community you are trying to escape into and makes stopping you by any means a priority. that cop does not know if you still have the gun , does not know if you will attempt to car jack to escape or force entry somewhere to hide and does not know if you will ambush the cops if they give chase

 

[Neph]

The officer isn't meting out punishment in such a case, he is acting in defense of the community at large. If he reasonably believes a killer is escaping police custody and will present a danger to the community, he is empowered to use force to prevent that. That seems like exactly what happened in this case.

If you pose an immediate, mortal danger to others then yes, the police can and should kill you. But it should be certain and in this instance the guy was unarmed. I don't know how they came to decide it was appropriate to kill him - perhaps more will come out as this moves on, I am basing it simply on what is currently being reported.

To repeat - as the story is being reported so far - the guy was unarmed. In my opinion he did not pose the kind of danger that required him being shot to death in the back. If that story changes, my opinion will also change.

If someone makes the argument 'well, he might have been armed', they are going to immediately dig themselves a huge hole because the police then can just say that in every defence of their killings ever. He might've been (but he wasn't). He could have (but he didn't). It doesn't work that way. They must be certain to kill someone.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

If you are going to parcel out your sympathy, you might as well save it all together. That kid that got shot in the drive by was probably involved in another shooting some time before. Out of the crooked timber of humanity, nothing straight was ever made. I’m not saying the officer acted wrongly, but it’s OK to feel sympathy for the tragedy of the entire situation.

Agreed, and deeply. I do feel bad for the tragedy of the situation overall, and you might be right that the guy shot by Rose had it coming or at least was no angel himself. As the prophet Ezekiel says, "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Lord GOD. would I not prefer he turn from his ways and live?"

I do think it seems incongruous for the community to act as if Rose being shot by the police was unjust, when the fellow Rose conspired to kill was the victim in this case.

 

[HomerThompson]

Agreed. Though I think there is still a conversation to be had about how sure you have to be before you shoot. As I stated above, I'm not sure the cop knew that the runner was a murderer.

Edit: The police stated that Rose was unarmed when he was shot, but that two firearms were found in the car from which he had fled. Police stated that the driver of the car was not responsible for the earlier drive-by shooting and was released from custody later that evening.

What if the driver had fled?

This makes it sound like they had the wrong car.

 

[HomerThompson]

I agree in principal that police should not shoot kids in the back, bu tin this specific case, the details seem to justify the shooting. I think the wrong shooting is being protested here. It's the other kid who needs his poems read and candlelight vigils and all that.

Pathetic.

 

[Neph]

Heres the catch

The suspect was suspected of having just shot someone .... that makes you a threat to the community you are trying to escape into and makes stopping you by any means a priority. that cop does not know if you still have the gun , does not know if you will attempt to car jack to escape or force entry somewhere to hide and does not know if you will ambush the cops if they give chase

I think I've addressed this earlier; I agree decisions are extremely difficult to make in the moment but the evidence is that this was the wrong decision. An unarmed person was killed.

If someone makes the argument 'well, he might have been armed', they are going to immediately dig themselves a huge hole because the police then can just say that in every defence of their killings ever. He might've been (but he wasn't). He could have (but he didn't). It doesn't work that way. They must be certain to kill someone.

Secondly there are times that police need to make snap decisions and those decisions can be difficult. It seems from a foreigners perspective that these decisions are all too often in favour of heavy handed so-called justice and that the laws protect police who make these actions. As an Australian the death of Justine Damond really hit home and I suspect most fair minded people will agree that there is a problem in how police in the US continue to kill citizens. It seems to happen time and time again and this is just one more to the list. I am amazed that people defend the state simply executing people on the street and providing legislation that completely exonerates them.

 

[HomerThompson]

If you are going to parcel out your sympathy, you might as well save it all together. That kid that got shot in the drive by was probably involved in another shooting some time before. Out of the crooked timber of humanity, nothing straight was ever made. I’m not saying the officer acted wrongly, but it’s OK to feel sympathy for the tragedy of the entire situation.

He definitely acted wrongly. He shot an unarmed suspect in the back.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Pathetic.

Please, say more. Why do you think it is pathetic to suggest that the kid shot in a drive by isn't more worthy of candlelight vigils than one of the kids who conspired to shoot him?

 

[Johnny Mac]

@Johnny Mac @dfoster What the fuck is wrong with Tupac and poetry? EH?!

“Did you hear about the rose that grew from a crack in the concrete?
Proving nature's laws wrong, it learned to walk without having feet.
Funny, it seems to by keeping it's dreams; it learned to breathe fresh air.
Long live the rose that grew from concrete when no one else even cared.”

Beautiful, poetic metaphor about the ghetto. It's just Tupac was smart enough to understand that. Why hate on Pac?

@Johnny Mac ripskater apparently is a piece of shit.

I am not ripskater, but I used to listen to Tupac.

Not a good idea to run from the cops.

 

[HomerThompson]

Please, say more. Why do you think it is pathetic to suggest that the kid shot in a drive by isn't more worthy of candlelight vigils than one of the kids who conspired to shoot him?

I don't support <insert abhorrent action>, except for when I do.

 

[luckyshot]

He definitely acted wrongly. He shot an unarmed suspect in the back.

I haven’t read the details of the case. But, yes, unless there are drastic extenuating circumstances, shooting someone in the back is generally a wrong thing to do.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I don't support <insert abhorrent action>, except for when I do.

There's nothing pathetic about such a formulation at all. As an obvious example, it is quite sensible to state that I don't support <homicide>, except <when it is in self-defense>.

I think @luckyshot 's caveat is far better: even if a terrible action is justified, it can still be mourned. And should be.

 

[Gutter Chris]

evidence is that this was the wrong decision. An unarmed person was killed.

The fact that he didnt have it on him that second does not matter. Suspected shooter and he could have. The cops had no way to know and couldnt let him run off.This ends up being this morons fault x2 for being involved in a shooting and then trying to run .This isnt on the cops

protectandserve did a good job explaining it in the real thread

It also puts the cops in a damned if you do damned if you dont situation. If they blast him on the spot people cry oh my god you shot an unarmed kid but if they let him run and some fuckery takes place people are going to cry why didnt you stop him

We have a police brutality problem in america

But this is not that

 

[Neph]

The fact that he didnt have it on him that second does not matter. Suspected shooter and he could have. The cops had no way to know and couldnt let him run off.This ends up being this morons fault x2 for being involved in a shooting and then trying to run .This isnt on the cops

protectandserve did a good job explaining it in the real thread

It also puts the cops in a damned if you do damned if you dont situation. If they blast him on the spot people cry oh my god you shot an unarmed kid but if they let him run and some fuckery takes place people are going to cry why didnt you stop him

We have a police brutality problem in america

But this is not that

The logical end of this is awful. The guy was a suspect as you rightfully pointed out. The police didn't witness the alleged shooting, they are working off second hand information only. You are right when they say 'they had no way to know'. That is exactly my point. If you don't know, you don't kill someone.

By the logic of your argument just about anything can be justified with the least amount of effort. I thought he was the shooter (tick). He might have had a gun (tick). That's it. Surely you have to hold your police force to higher standards than that. That is exactly why there is a brutality issue!

 

[Gutter Chris]

The logical end of this is awful. The guy was a suspect as you rightfully pointed out. The police didn't witness the alleged shooting, they are working off second hand information only. You are right when they say 'they had no way to know'. That is exactly my point. If you don't know, you don't kill someone.

By the logic of your argument just about anything can be justified with the least amount of effort. I thought he was the shooter (tick). He might have had a gun (tick). That's it. Surely you have to hold your police force to higher standards than that. That is exactly why there is a brutality issue!

Again the crime you are suspected of really should matter on how the cops approach you

You should not shoot anyone who runs if they are not a suspect in a violent crime

If you are the suspect of a violent crime and suspected to be armed there are too many variables to just let you run off or do whatever you want. I dont know why you dont understand this last part

 

[Seano]

So who is the abuser in the relationship that the black community is involved with? The white community?

Their culture. Inner city culture specifically.

 

[HomerThompson]

There's nothing pathetic about such a formulation at all. As an obvious example, it is quite sensible to state that I don't support <homicide>, except <when it is in self-defense>.

I think @luckyshot 's caveat is far better: even if a terrible action is justified, it can still be mourned. And should be.

Except that your justification wasn't anything approaching an extraordinary circumstance, such as self defense. It's more just because you feel like justifying it, not because the circumstance is actually extraordinary.

Also, shooting someone in the back is much more specific than any iteration of killing someone else. In fact, the only justification here would also be self defense, but that wasn't applicable.

 

[HomerThompson]

Their culture. Inner city culture specifically.

Who their?